Nick Uva

Under the Article IV of the US Constitution, the Federal Government must guarantee to each state a republican form of government. A fortiori the States must ensure that they have a republican form of government.

This Constitutional provision (and the parameters of a "republican form of government") has seldom been construed by the courts, but the Supreme Court has held that this is a political question and consequently it is up to the Congress and not the Courts to determine whether a State's form of government in fact renders it a republic or not.

Islamic Shari'a law is of course an all-encompassing theocratic system predicated upon Muslim supremacy over all mankind. This necessitates religious discrimination and also mandates severe legal disabilities for those who are not Muslims. It is therefore far more oppressive than a constitutional monarchy or any other system the Founders might reasonably have contemplated when drafting the Constitution of the United States.

In my opinion, incorporating any portion of Shari'a law renders a government, ipso facto, not a republican form of government and therefore to that extent illegitimate in the American system, as the Federal government is obligated to prevent such an outcome.

In The Federalist Papers No. 43, future President James Madison wrote in support of the guarantee clause:

...who can say what experiments [in State governments] may be produced by the caprice of particular States, by the ambition of enterprising leaders, or by the intrigues and influence of foreign powers?... Whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the federal guaranty for the latter. The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for antirepublican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.

The creeping acceptance of Shari'a in American courts and business practices certainly qualifies as the intrigue and influence of foreign powers. If it does not, then nothing on this Earth will.

Taking Madison's reasoning further into the arena of modern judicial combat, implementing any degree of Shari'a would violate the generous human rights provisions which are found in American State Constitutions and would constitute per se an illegal attempt (by the Legislature or a court as the case may be) to deny a person the protections of the Constitution of the State or limit the possible applicability of protections of the US Constitution to persons within that State.

This may seem extreme to some but an American should feel no more obligated to obey Shari'a (regardless of what the Legislature or a Court does) than he would be to obey a person who set up a monarchy in his State.

Reference: Article IV, U.S. Constitution at Wikipedia.